Masterpiece Decision: Supreme Court Pushes Back Against the Rising Tide of Anti-Religious Animus
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court today pushed back against the rising tide of anti-religious sentiments in America, ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips.
Baker Jack Phillips Wins
In a 7-2 decision, the court specifically rebuked the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had ruled against Phillips when he refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage.” As expressed in the majority opinion of Anthony Kennedy, “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
Although the court did not issue a ruling on the wider questions regarding the conflict between religious freedoms and LGBT rights, the ruling was a major step in the right direction. May the pushback against LGBT extremism (and anti-Christian animus) continue!
Alliance Defending Freedom Ad
Ironically, the case was argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which the SPLC brazenly labeled a hate group because of its conservative Christian views. As noted earlier today on Forbes.com (unrelated to the SCOTUS ruling), “Alliance Defending Freedom are currently classed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.” Yes, an extremist hate group!
Adding to the irony is that, in the story covered by Forbes, the ADF came under fire this past weekend when one of its ads appeared on some LGBT YouTube channels, provoking a torrent of protest against the internet giant. (I wrote about this as well, since one of my ads also appeared on these channels, adding to the LGBT outrage. Forbes and others have reported on our video as well.)
The ADF ad in question told the story of Christian florist Barronnelle Stutzman, who has been unfairly (and harshly) punished by the courts for declining to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex “wedding.” Yet her case is almost an exact parallel to the case of Jack Phillips.
Both are Christian conservatives. Both have a history of serving the LGBT community. And both declined to be coerced by the state into using their artistic gifts in a direct violation of their religion and conscience. (In the words of Phillips, “It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience.”)
LGBT Activism
Today, the Supreme Court took an important step in recognizing that the First Amendment remains in force. It also confirmed what I have said for years, namely, that LGBT activism is the principle threat to freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience in America. May the pushback against this extremism continue.
Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »
It would take many books to document the rise of anti-religious (specifically, anti-Christian) sentiments in America today. Suffice it to say that much of the anti-Christian bigotry comes from LGBT activists and their allies. They have successfully demonized Christian conservatives who hold to traditional (= biblical values). (For extensive documentation through 2011, see here. And 2011 was a long time ago.)
That’s why, within the last 24 hours, I was associated with ISIS and the KKK simply for producing a video which explains what the Bible says about homosexuality.
That’s why, the ADF, which in recent years, has argued and won more cases before the Supreme Court than almost any other legal organization, can be labeled an extremist hate group. (In reality, as I have often argued, the SPLC is the truly dangerous hate group.)
Enough is Enough
And that’s why I continue to expect a pushback against this left-leaning, increasingly-secular, oppressive and tyrannical attack on our freedoms of conscience, freedom and religion. Enough is really enough. In fact, it’s been more than enough for many years now.
The time to push back is not merely upon us. It has almost passed us by.
If we don’t speak and act and do what is right today, we’ll have a lot of explaining to do to our kids and grandkids and great grandkids — not to mention to God as well.
This doesn’t mean that we hate those we differ with. God forbid.
This doesn’t mean that we harass or persecute those who identify as LGBTQ. Not at all.
Rather, it means that anything that threatens our most fundamental freedoms — to repeat, our freedoms of conscience and religion and speech — must be resisted.
The churches must resist it. The media must resist it. The educational system must resist it. Big business must resist it. And the courts must resist it.
Although the 7-2 ruling could have been broader in terms of addressing the larger, philosophical issues at hand, the fact that it was 7-2 (rather than 5-4), with liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joining the conservative justices (with Anthony Kennedy), bodes well for the future. It sends a message as well.
Justice Alito’s Prediction
Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and deigned to redefine marriage, Justice Samuel Alito issued a strong dissenting opinion. In it, he warned, “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
He was mocked for this opinion in a remarkably short-sighted (really, almost blind) op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Robin Abcarian. The headline read, “In a bizarre dissent, Justice Alito predicts gays might seek revenge on straights.”
Abcarian wrote, “You might have thought that today’s landmark Supreme Court decision represented the end of discrimination against gays who want to marry. But according to one dissenting justice, the decision instead represents a threat to another group of citizens.
“Who might they be? People who oppose gay marriage.
“Incredibly, Justice Samuel Alito fretted that it won’t be safe to knock gay marriage anymore.”
What is incredible is that Abcarian wasn’t aware of the high tide of anti-religious discrimination that had already risen in America. (That’s why I said the op-ed was almost blind and not just short-sighted.) What Alito warned against was already here. And it was Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the redefinition of marriage.
Today, Kennedy took one small step to righting his wrongs. May much bigger steps be taken in the days ahead.
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
2 threads already exist on this subject.
This decision was specific to THIS baker, not all bakers. This decision was not a "win for the Christian bigotry".
It is however a win against a couple of anti religion bigots on the civil rights commission.
You are aware that there are gay Christians...that are married. Right?
So why did the commission compare people with religious beliefs to slave holders and Holocaust participants?
How exactly do you know these two are anti-religious? Did they tell you that?
What they had to say is public record. It certainly didn't impress Justice Kennedy very much.
So what makes you think that they are anti-religious. Second time I am asking you. Can you answer that question? Did they state that they are anti-religion? Or are you ASSUMING that they are?
Did Roseanne state she was a racist or Samantha Bee that she was a sexist? People say things and get judged by their words. It happens all the time.
Sounds like a very accurate observation particularly given that Phillips is a member of a Christian extremist sect which was founded to promote slavery and white supremacy. They also have a history of supporting lynching, misogyny, homophobia and antisemitism.
This is a No True Scotsman fallacy because your religious opinions do not determine who can and cannot be a Christian. What sect are you a member of?
Do you know more about the Christian religion than the Pope? Where did you get your theology degree from?
sorry hun...
the catholic church is anti-christian = period
how to spot evil? they protect pedophile priests.
the pope is only the moral center for catholics and the plain old fashioned stupid.
christians do not need a middleman.
that seems like an odd statement since (from what i understand) Catholics are Christian, correct ?
i could obviously be wrong , no doubt about that, that's just from my understanding
Huh and I thought a Christian was a follower of Christ - which includes Catholics. How did I know that the Christians would start eating each other?
And you base this on what, exactly? Other than a No true Scotsman fallacy.
late breaking news.
Your answer implies I said something along those lines. I did not. I simply stated a fact.
Christians are followers of Christ & Catholics follow Christ.
Nom Nom Nom - the sound of Christians eating their own.
catholics are like dogs easily controlled thru the use of guilt (catholics love to push the guilt.)
christians are like cats...didja ever try to herd cats? LOL
christians follow no man on this earth = uncontrollable / the pope hates that and we do not care what he says.
a personal relationship with christ is only dangerous to the popes collection plates. (they already have enough money)
Cheers
you said christians follow the pope plain as day.
but in fact, christians have never, and will never, follow any man currently on this earth.... not even the pope.
my church? has no walls, no door, no roof.
Cheers
Christians have no religious leaders on earth ? are you sure you are going to make that statement because i'm pretty sure Christians do have religious leaders (which are men - or women depending). (which would also mean they do follow a man [or woman depending] on this earth and are controlled)
You are trying awfully hard to separate yourself from followers of your own religion who worship the exact same God you do - it's interesting that not even the religious can unify
No surprise that some of your fellow conservatives are saying that this ruling now allows them to deny service to black folks.
Contrary to what Protestants believe Catholics do not have a middleman because Catholics do not pray to the Pope. The Pope is merely middle management.
The Catholic church is the foundation of the western Christian church because Martin Luther was a Catholic priest before he redecorated the door at Wittenburg with his 99 op-ed letters.
The pope isn't god. He isn't even a saint.
The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the replacement of St Peter. He is not part of the triune God (Father, Son and Holy Ghost)
Correct. They ask for her intercession but they do not pray to her directly to solve a problem.
Almost all of the Christian sects have some form of a priest or a minister.
If Christians keep pushing for even more religious freedom, they may find that they will be discriminated against more and more and more. Mike Pence found this out the hard way in Indiana.. He essentially wanted to pass a bill that would allow people to discriminate based on religious views. What he didn't realize is that same bill would make it legal to discriminate against Christians....the very people he was trying to, "help".
One thing I think the right wing Christians seem to forget is that, "freedom of religion" applies to ALL, religions, not just Christians. If the Christians get a law passed that favors them, it favors other religions too. It's a double edge sword.
All of these, religion re-affirmation laws are for is to eek out just a LITTLE bit more wiggle room to allow the Christians to use bigotry and hate against people they don't like, legally. And I mean, lets face it folks, we all know Jesus hated gays, democrats, the poor, liberals and anyone with brown skin. /sarc
yes sir...No cross on that wedding cake for you.
No doubt there are bakers who have already been doing that.
I am already married, and our cake had no cross on it, nor did we request one.
My comment was meant to be generic. sorry
No cross on anyone's cake from anyone who doesn't want to "create" one then.
Too much has been read into this decision. Everybody was expecting a sweeping change one way or another. The reality is nothing much has changed except that religion haters in public office have to hold their tongue.
By this you mean, anyone that isn't a far right wing Christian bigot?
I mean anybody who automatically mocks anyone who believes in God. I call it the "Joy Behar Effect".
How is asking for a wedding cake mocking them?
Never heard of it. My guess is that you made it up so you could sneak in a slam under the radar. I call that the "Mike Pence Effect".
Which God???
Odin.
Oh yeah!!!
skirting the CoC "BF"
Chances are, the majority of public office holders are religious themselves.
Absurd religious beliefs and claims are not exempt from mocking.
This SCOTUS decision didnt make any statement about free speech.
Again... Religious freedom cannot violate someone else's civil rights. PERIOD.
funny thing: religious liberty? is a civil right that is enshrined in and listed at the top of our bill of rights. (freedom of religion)
question: do your civil rights ever trump another person's civil rights?
(that is a very sticky question indeed.)
You cannot use religion to deny someone else their civil rights. It is ILLEGAL.
Want to know what happens if you do use your religious views to obstruct someone else's civil rights?
This..
"CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
and... you can not use civil rights to deny someone their civil right to freedom of religion. it is illegal as well
so? go fish at the supreme court some more
Agreed. But using religion to deny civil rights, is illegal, and in this case, as well as the Kim Davis case, it was religion that was being used to deny civil rights. I have not seen or heard of anyone using their civil rights to deny someone their free expression of their religion in an ILLEGAL way.
Sorry but as SCOTUS noted in Newman v Piggie Park, that claim is frivolous. Superstition can't be used as an excuse to violate public accommodations laws.
exactly.
the court has a habit of very narrow rulings often skipping the bigger constitutional question at hand and making decisions based on the " legal process" alone.... so yepp... maybe next year, maybe longer.
my imagination as you call it has correctly called every supreme court decision I have taken an interest in since 2004.
so, my imagination is still batting 1000 regardless what you think about me.
btw... send my regards to obama for all the rightwing precedent he set at our court with his record number of loses.
cheers
And, were did someone have their freedom to worship they way they see fit get obstructed in this case?
ask the baker about his religious freedoms being violated... I have nothing to do with that bakers belief/
I would have made the cake. but that is just the way I roll
Was he ever restricted from reading his Bible or, going to his church or, praying to Yahweh or, anything else involved in his religion? If not then he had no real reason to deny making the cake.
yes I am. the evidence suggests it is you who are wrong but do not let it bother you... stuff like that happens.
need another source? try this one.
seems the court "noted" the same thing I told you.
so in the future, instead of trying to tell me? save yourself the trouble and just ask me.
the left likes to ignore that bit... but the supreme court did not forget as the court did note the following in agreement with us.
freedom of religion and freedom of speech are inextricably attached at the hip and listed at the top of our bill of rights for a very good reason.
the 1st amendment clearly won this battle. it was predictable.
Cheers
Except when it interferes with someone else's civil rights.
don't take it so hard. one day, with a little patience and effort you might learn how to predict the supreme court decisions as well
until then... pardon us while we have our cake, and our religion too.
cheers
And you might learn to understand what they say and what their legal effect is. Note that the first ruling to cite Masterpiece reveals that it says the exact opposite of what you thought.
I get the legal effect. and for now? there is none. nothing has changed LOL
in the end you are going to find the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion will stand and so will public accommodation laws.
the courts will eventually rule somewhere in the middle. for instance:
people have a right to a cake, but they do not have a right to a "special custom made wedding cake.
all they have to do is sell those little people on the side and anyone can pick their people combo to put on top of their standardized wedding cake. want two guys to stand on your cake? buy two male figurines to stand on your cake... go ahead.. no one will care and accommodation is still served. however.. if you want to force that baker to create something special/unique just for you? go fish.
That's an obviously false claim since public accommodation laws require the full and equal provision of goods and services which are provided to the general public, as the Arizona and Colorado courts noted.
And if there were a constitutional claim which would allow an exception to these laws then it would undermine all such laws for all protected classes. That's why no such exception will ever be found.
Of course the dumb bigots already have a simple way to evade such laws - they can run their business (or even a portion of their business) as a private members-only club like the whites-only country club which Lush Dimbulb attends.
I assert those laws can change.... problem?
But they didn't change.
if you were actually following the conversation?
you would know I acknowledged that earlier at 6.1.23
we were discussing future rulings/legislative options IE: carving out an exception for artists like the one given to faith based organizations as it is my contention that art is a form of speech and no one can compel one to speak against their beliefs because freedom of religion and freedom of speech are indeed connected at the hip under the first amendment.
personally I also do not like the idea of a satanist bakers being forced to make a jasus cake or a person who specializes in lgbt wedding planning to be forced to do a traditional man and wife wedding. something will have to give... for now people can just stop doing custom work for anyone. or create "custom cake clubs - members only"
there is no world where artists are forced to speak or a world where they can be silenced.. simply not going to happen.
cheers
The vast majority on business owners are mature enough to serve the customer as required and keep their own religious views out of the marketplace when they operate a secular business.
We are not going to repeal the public accommodation guarantee for people who are not mature enough to do so. If you cannot serve the customers as the law requires then you are in the wrong occupation.
exactly... I also would have made the cake. and what I said above still stands as well.
the vast majority in this country must make room for the few.. be they bigots or not.
hint: just because I say the sun is coming up tomorrow? does not mean I hate people with skin cancer.
(in other words... regardless if I like it or not? what is, simply is.)
cheers
but on a side note:
do you not find it fascinating that a legal dispute over lgbt rights and religious freedom will boil down to a completely different issue? that art is a form of speech which can not be forced or silenced.
like I said... it will happen just like that
Why would a blue state change those laws which have been so successful at minimizing this kind of irrational discrimination?
Of course no confederate state or other red state has comprehensive public accommodation laws, only some cities in those benighted states do.
no repeal required to add an exception for artists. if congress does not, the courts eventually will be forced to.
and this is not a country where the majority gets to squash free speech of the minority regardless if they are bigots or not. (this is an indisputable fact)
anyways... we can talk more about this as new cases reach the supreme court... for now? I have become bored with this subject... we will have plenty of chances for this subject in the future as one thing is for certain, the left will keep pushing on christian bakers until an exception is carved out for artists under "free speech"... Cya then.
Cheers
Sorry but both the religious excuses and "artistic" excuses were dealt with many decades ago. Your side lost.
ya mean like how religious organizations lost? is that what you mean?
do ya wanna try again?
dont bother... IM done with this subject for now.
cheers
How can they possibly be an artist when the customer designs the cake?
You need to accept that fact that bigotry in public business isn't tolerated and stop looking for legal loopholes to hide behind.
the age-old distinction between design and creation... LOL
anyone can have an idea. or "design if you prefer that word.
only an artist can make that idea become a real/tangible thing and have that new thing not look like crap.
if everyone could do it? we would not be having this discussion
Cheers
on a side note: did you know even ceasar tried to censor and or control artists? every despot or dictator since has failed also.
artists will never be forced to speak or be silenced... age-old lesson that goes back before plato and aristotle all the way back to cave man.
Does that mean that every supermarket with a bakery department hires artists? Are the butchers also "protein artists"?
What were the gay couples religious view of they threatened Phillips religious views? Logically, they both can't be Christian if Phillips claim is true.
It comes across to me that conservatives think that they can refuse service in a business as a way of fighting back against LGBT equal rights since they have already lost the legal fight in the courts and public opinion is against them. Do you also want to deny service to black and interracial couples because your threadbare arguments are the very same as those bigots used? They also lost.
if they do custom decorations yes they already hire artists
question:
did I say supermarkets must hire artists who are bigots?? put your imagination back in check.
im out.
Cheers
No, it means that dumb bigots have no valid excuses when they violate the law. As SCOTUS said 140 years ago: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Cake bakers aren't artists and not all of the Christian bakers are bigots.
You're running away because your claim of them being artists just collapsed like a bad souffle'
In fact conservatives do want to do just that as we saw in North Dakota the other day:
It seems that the only thing that's changed about conservatives in the past 150 years is their party affiliation.
the same court that had not yet given women the right to vote? that court?
id say this issue also needs to be and eventually will be revisited.
Cheers
your opinion. the people who decorate cakes? surely are artists... my opinion
try it yourself see how it works out. maybe your an artist and someone would pay money for the cake you decorated. if not? you're no artist
btw what is a lawyers favorite expression?
anything can be tested in court again and again and again. (and, retainers are paid upfront
I worked in a bakery in college and I decorated cakes. I am not an artist and anyone who claim that a baker was an artist would have been laughed at. You can learn to decorate cakes in a weekend Wilton workshop. It is just not that difficult.
How can they possibly be an artist when the customer designs the cake?
The execution of the design may require a skilled artist. The examples I've seen from the "masterpiece bakery" are anything but.
That California judge's ruling was tossed out by the appellate court above him.
I doubt you can understand this legal language.
Indeed! From what they have shown in the article, the baker's cake creations are anything but a "masterpiece". I've seen prettier and more well decorated cakes by the people at grocery store bakeries. And done so in a very timely manner.
I don't see anything that special regarding the bakers "masterpiece" cakes. I think that is just a come on to justify scamming his customers to pay more of them.
The issue was revisited in 1990 when Scalia used the same quote I did to make the same point. And the underlying message of that quote is inarguable.
There is no reason for the SCOTUS to revist this issue, unless you have something more legally relevant than "I don't like your ruling".
The cakes that we baked in the late 1980s started at $50 for a 12x24" birthday cake and went to almost 4 figures for a 4 layer wedding cake. We often turned away business at the holidays because we were overbooked. Our lead time was a week minimum, except at graduation and holidays when it was 2 weeks, except for a very simple sheet cake.
Do you know who the one holdout was on the 8-1 ruling on public accommodation? Thomas or Gorsuch....?
If Scalia ruled against bigotry then you need to dig pretty deep to find support because he was more of a priest than a judge on many issues.
Thomas, and he makes a number of errors in his concurrence (like thinking that strict scrutiny is required despite Colorado not having an RFRA). But he clearly thinks both religion and free expression are valid excuses for breaking a generally applicable law.
Gorsuch joined in part with Thomas, but also wrote his own concurrence even though he tried to twist the arguments of the case into something they were not. But in the end he agrees the law is enforceable.
.
That's certainly true but the case in question (where he cited the quote from Reynolds v US) was Employment Div v Smith, and that was the ruling which spawned the federal RFRA. So in that ruling Scalia wasn't opposed to bigotry, he was if anything being a bigot against a minority religion while pretending to be neutral and secular. However that ruling was correct, it wasn't the proper role of the court to make an exception to the law. That's the role of Congress and it did so rather clumsily when it passed the RFRA.
Have they ruled already? I knew an appeal was planned but I didn't realize it had already happened. This is all I've found:
.
Judge Lampe's ruling would have been reversed anyway, but after the Masterpiece decision the only thing the appeals court can do is reverse it. I hope they make that moron eat crow by ordering a remand and carefully instructing him to bone up on how public accommodations laws work.
FYI, you might want to learn how women actually got the right to vote. It didn't come from a court ruling.
I was wrong. It hasn't been ruled on at the appellate level. The recent SCOTUS decision almost certainly makes that ruling a foregone conclusion.
That's moving at lightning speed as far as courts go and it means the appeals court will correct the error soon.
Its been amusing skimming the threads on this topic. The same "legal eagles" who've been claiming for months that this was an open and shut case for the state are now ignoring their previous promise of absolute victory to misrepresent this as some sort of defeat for the baker. What a joke. The lawyers for Colorado aren't celebrating this decision, that's for sure.
If not the most sweeping possible decision, this is a big win for those who support religious freedom, there's no spinning that.
The only winner here was this one baker. This is not a sweeping change of any laws... One decision....one baker. That's all.
Are you implying that Christians are not expressing hate in this case? Not all, but most right wing Christians are some of the most hate filled and least Christ like people I have ever seen.
And really not even that. All he actually "won" was a reprieve from the fine due to an error by the civil rights commission, but if he denies service to another gay couple (or even if Craig & Mullins refile their complaint) then the bigot will lose again unanimously and be fined again.
At best the bigot won a very small battle but he and all anti-gay bigots actually lost the war.
Or maybe people pushed back against religious intolerance.
How is bigotry or discrimination right exactly?
Unless they're gay.
It just means you want to deny them their rights or refuse to provide service in order to coddle religious sensibilities.
I have yet to see how any freedom was threatened, much less denied.
Until you go too far again and get more push back.
Kennedy’s basis went far beyond the bigoted ironically named “civil rights”commissioner and looked at how they handled other issues of compelled speech. Unsurprisingly, Colorado permitted businesses to refuse the making of cakes with anti gay messsages. As Kennedy said,
On at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory.”
if a state is going to permit other businesses to refuse customers based on requests they find offensive, they have to extend that right to those whose objections are grounded in religion. That way everyone is treated equally.
As SCOTUS said, "There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public."
If there is an "animus" against religion, then that "animus" can only be perpetuated by those that infest that religion.
If there is "anti-religious sentiments" (which I doubt) in America, then perhaps the problem lies with religion.
Anyone is fully within their rights to submit to one or as many religions as they wish. They are also allowed to indulge themselves in the economic benefit that religions enjoy in lavish luxuries. Beyond that just STFU and no one will care, but it seems that they can't do that now can they.
CoC Violation "BF"